A former federal prosecutor involved in the terrorism financing trial against the Holy Land Foundation confirmed to The Federalist today that Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, whom President Donald Trump has said he intends to nominate as director of national intelligence, did receive a special appointment as part of the case.
“John was appointed to look into allegations of potential misconduct involving a juror and one or more of the defendants in that case,” Nathan Garrett, a formal federal prosecutor who worked on the trial team, told The Federalist Tuesday morning. “John is a stellar lawyer, experienced national security prosecutor and leader, and a man of the highest character.”
ABC News alleged in an article that Ratcliffe “misrepresented” and “embellished” his role in the case, even suggesting that he was not involved with it at all.
“ABC News could find no public court records that connect Ratcliffe to either of the two trials for the case,” the article claimed. “Former officials directly involved in the decade-long Holy Land Foundation investigation could not recall Ratcliffe having any role, and four former defense attorneys who served on the cases told ABC News on Monday they had no recollection of Ratcliffe being involved with any of the proceedings that resulted in the convictions of their clients.”
Garrett, who is listed on the federal court docket for the Holy Land Foundation case as one of the prosecutors of record representing the United States, told The Federalist that ABC News never contacted him for comment prior to publishing its article.
There's more at The Federalist, but this tactic demonstrates IMO that the Left is seriously freaked over Ratcliffe: Former Federal Prosecutor Confirms Rep. John Ratcliffe’s Role In Holy Land Foundation Case.
UPDATE: Paul Mirengoff has some interesting observations re Coats and Ratcliffe:
Trump’s track record shows that he’s amenable to hearing, and even following, advice that doesn’t comport with his instincts. Indeed, according to Lake, Coats got on Trump’s bad side after he advised the president to meet with James Comey before making a decision on whether to fire the FBI director. Trump followed this advice and met with the snake, to his extreme detriment,
On the policy side, Afghanistan is probably the best example of Trump being swayed by advice he disagreed with. From everything I can tell, Trump is a good listener, but only to people he trusts.
As for Ratcliffe “silencing” the intelligence community, it’s not going to happen. If Ratcliffe makes statements with which even a small portion of that community disagrees, you will read about it in the Washington Post.
A Director of National Intelligence Trump trusts? The horror!